|ON THE STORIES BY PETER STAUDENMAIER
"Evil will be openly present in a large number of people
as an attitude, a way of thinking,
not any more covered up or hidden.
The evil ones will praise the evil as something especially valuable.
A certain sensual pleasure in this evil, this demony ...
can already be seen in many people ...
Nietzsche's "blond beast" is for example
only an early ghostly picture, pointing to it."
Rudolf Steiner in a lecture 11 Nov 1904 in Berlin
The main criticism in English on the Internet for
an alleged anti-Semitism and racism in anthroposophy can be found in a
number of articles by a Peter Staudenmaier. They are published by the small
anti-waldorf criticism-hate type of group PLANS in San Francisco at its
site and at other places on the Internet.
While not as extensive in its
demagoguery, the group has a similar relation to Waldorf education and
anthroposophy as its philosophical basis as the anti-Semitic hate site
Jewwatch.com in relation to Jewry and Judaism. For more on this, see a
separate page on the group.
Neither any easily found evidence
on the net, nor any info given by Staudenmaier himself in discussions tells
that he has even a basic academic degree in any subject.
In spite of this, he has the
habit of directly and indirectly referring to his work as "scholarship"
and to himself as a "historical scholar" as something seemingly to himself
self evident. Only after for years having claimed "scholarship" has he
in discussions in 2004 told that he during the Fall of 2004 would start
studying at a graduate program at a university (He then has registered as a student at the University of Cornell).
Some elementary criteria for historical scholarship, as
for all scholarship, are:
One may sympathize or not with the basic works of Staudenmaier,
as described at the site of an "Institute for Social Ecology", with which
he is associated.
Truthfulness in describing the primary documentary sources
upon which one founds one's judgments, meaning
a. telling the truth about what is stated in the primary
sources that do exist, as described by the authors of the primary sources,
b. not lying about the content of the primary sources
you say you use, and
c. not adding untruths about nonexistent primary documentary
Demonstrating that one has understood the basic concepts
of the subjects one discusses, also as they are understood and used by
the authors, whose works you use as primary sources.
Demonstrating some reasonable balance in the judgment one
comes to on the basis of the truthful description of the primary sources,
the demonstrated understanding of the basic concepts discussed as well
as a general overview of the subject one discusses.
Scratching somewhat at the surface
of his seductively eloquently formulated writings shows he fails on all
three points on the subject of anthroposophy in terms of reliability and
It also shows that what he writes
in public discussions repeatedly turns out to be untruths and developing
as demagoguery and different word- and mind games trying to blow smoke
screens about the actual truthfulness respectively untruthfulness of what
There are two main works by Steiner, mentioned by Staudenmaier,
alleged to demonstrate Steiner's "racism" and "anti-Semitism".
One is Cosmic
Memory (Aus der Akasha Chronik) found online on the internet at rsarchive.org,
published as a series of articles by Rudolf Steiner in 1904-1908 and later
in book form. They were written during a period, from 1902 up to 1912,
when Steiner was general secretary of the German section of one of the
theosophical societies at the time.
Already in the articles and
increasingly in 1909-1912, during the end of the period in question, Steiner
ever more distanced himself from some elements in the Theosophical tradition.
In 1909, he commented on one
of these elements; the simplified way of using the concept of "races" in
the theosophical tradition to describe human spiritual and cultural evolution
in a mechanical way. Steiner argued that the
concept of "race" was basically and ever more irrelevant in describing
human evolution since the last glacial ages.
While it was his view that what,
since the end of the 18th century was described the father of physical anthropology, Blumenbach, as "five main races of mankind" was something that had arisen before the end of the last glacial ages, it also was his view that they as such started to loose their reality as differentiation of humanity with the end of the last glacial ages and will cease to exist as we know them in a number of thousand years. For more on this, see here.
Instead he argued that human evolution since the last glacial ages follows a pattern of a number of main cultures, up to the Middle Ages developing out of cultural areas and in the main reflected by classical history as the cultures of Ancient India, Ancient Persia,
Egypt and other cultures of the Fertile Crescent, classical Greece and classical Rome.
Since the Middle Ages, and especially since the globalisation
of the world during the 20th century, this development of human culture
takes place on an ever more global scale.
In 1917, during the period in Europe when thinking of people in terms or "race" dominated all political thinking, Rudolf Steiner pointed to the ideals of race and nation as decaying impulses of humanity, expressing the opinion that nothing would bring humanity more into decay, than if the ideals of races, nations and blood were to continue.
The other main source referred to by Staudenmaier in his allegation that Steiner was a racist and anti-Semite is the lecture series Mission of Folk Souls by Rudolf Steiner, held in June 1910 in Oslo.
STAUDENMAIER AS "PROTOCOL OF STEINER" FORGER
As the foundation stone and introduction to his first article as solo writer on anthroposophy at the site of PLANS, "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", Staudenmaier, commissioned by a Norwegian secular humanist journal; "Humanist", untruthfully makes up and puts a spiritual "Protocol of Steiner" forgery about the lecture series.
In the article, published up to this day in November 2004, almost five years after its original publication, at the site of PLANS and a number of other places on the internet with the continuous silent approval of Staudenmaier, he writes:
"In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture was titled ‘The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.’ [...]
For many of the works, that Staudenmaier refers to as alleged sources of what he writes on Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, it probably is difficult for most people to find them and check to what extent his descriptions of them actually is true.
The ‘national souls’ of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the ‘germanic-nordic sub-race,’ the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical ‘root races.’ This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the ‘Aryan race.’ “
The last printed edition in English of the lecture series, that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes in the above quoted introduction to his article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", has been out of print since long. It however for a number of years has been possible to order in German (that Staudenmaier speaks fluently) in paperback at Amazon.de for some $US 10.
Reading the actual well documented and published lecture by Steiner, that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes, reveals that the second part of his description of its content is a defamatory complete untruth, in a way that constitutes an insult to the concept of "historical scholar" with which he habitually likes to describe himself.
Discussions with him have shown that he when writing the article just made it up out of his speculative imagination as an “opening device” to "sell in" his article to its readers in Norway, where the article was first published in 2000.
The lecture that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes (for the actual lecture in English translation, see here) does not with one word mention neither “root race”, nor an “Aryan race” as a “superior fifth root race” or a “Germanic-nordic sub-race”, or describes it as “the vanguard of the highest of five historical ‘root races’ ” or as “the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group”.
What the lecture instead gives
is among other things a description, in the tradition of Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas, of man as a spiritual being.
It also describes some of the
spiritual beings described by the Jewish-Christian tradition as Angels,
Archangels and higher spiritual beings, as an introduction -- in the same
Jewish-Christian tradition -- to how they, in Steiner’s understanding and
view, have interacted with man during different stages of our development
For an analysis of the lacking basis
of Staudenmaier’s made up “Aryan horror story“ -- with which he (up to this day in November 2004 as graudate student of history at the Cornell University) introduces his solo writings on anthroposophy, also with regard to the lecture series as a totality -- see another page at this site.
Checking further on what Staudenmaier
writes, in relation to the sources he allegedly refers to, indicates that
his untruthfulness as revealed by the introduction, is a repeated and typical
characteristic of his writings on Steiner and anthroposophy.
Like in the case of the made up untruthful
introduction and foundation stone of his later writings, it probably is
difficult for most of the readers to check what he writes against the actual
sources he writes that he refers to in his argumentation, in a way that
would make it possible to come to a judgment of what he writes.
For some sources, found online
on the Internet, that however is possible. To these sources belong Rudolf
Steiner's autobiography, that Staudenmaier uses in his argumentation against
In one article; "Anthroposophy and
its Defenders", written by Staudenmaier in cooperation with a Peter Zegers
in the Netherlands, they allegedly refer to Steiner's description of two
right wing personalities at the end of the 19th century as part of their
"argumentation" that Steiner was, as they write, an "enthusiastically active
pan-German nationalist" and anti-Semite.
One is a professor of history at the
University of Berlin, Heinrich von Treitschke, and the other is a Julius
Langbehn. For a comparison of what Staudenmaier/Zegers assert that Steiner
writes about them, with what Steiner himself actually writes in his autobiography,
see here for case of Treitschke and here for the case of Langbehn.
Like the untruthful introduction to his first article, the examples stand out as typical of the "truthfulness" of the writings of Staudenmaier (/Zegers) in relation to the sources, he (they) allegedly refer to in his (their) writings.
THE REPEATED UNTRUTHFULNESS OF PETER STAUDENMAIER
When Staudenmaier has been criticized for the way he describes the sources he allegedly refers to in the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", he in a follow up article ("The Art of Avoiding History") has answered that the method he has applied in writing the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" is "methodologically boring and conservative". He also writes that he in the article has been following "the standard scholarly procedure" in relation to the sources he has asserted that he has used and refers to.
In contrast to this assertion, discussions with Staudenmaier have shown that he, playing “historical scholar” -- when making up the untruthful, but “selling”description of mentioned lecture series as introducing “opening device” and “explanatory” foundation stone of his writings as solo author on anthroposophy -- neither had read the lecture series, nor the first allegedly "described" lecture in question.
In addition, Staudenmaier in the discussion
following the publication of the article which he introduces with the described
"Protocol of Steiner" hoax, later repeatedly has tried to create different
smoke screens to cover up for his untruthfulness, when it has been exposed.
The whole affair with the untruthful
introduction to the article in a nutshell summarizes and reveals the extremely
light hearted, distorting, unreliable carelessness and untruthfulness,
repeatedly found in the writings on anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, that
Staudenmaier has produced, when checking them against the actual sources
he says he describes.
Consistent with this, Staudenmaier also -- not unexpectedly -- when in the end faced with the question if to take responsibility to see to it that what is found by him on the net actually is truthful, has commented:
"I don't take these thing nearly as seriously
as you do".
STAGES IN STAUDENMAIER'S EFFORT TO COVER UP FOR HIS EXPOSED
UNTRUTHFULNESS AND UNRELIABILITY AS SELF PROCLAIMED "HISTORICAL SCHOLAR"
After in the discussions about his article realizing
that the alleged content of the lecture he says he describes in the widely
translated and published article not corresponds to the
actual documented and 1922 published first lecture of the lecture series,
he starts to try to get out of his untrue made up "Protocol of Steiner"
story, written in the same vein as the "Protocol of Zion" forgery 100 years
earlier, then produced to incite hatred against Jews, by producing a number
of new stories, without being able to document their truth either.
An early version of the efforts
to produce the smoke screen cover ups of his untruths is that the "Protocol
of Steiner" story he has made up, is to state that the "lecture" he describes -- even if it not found as the first lecture of the series as he writes in his introduction -- yet constitutes the basis for the whole published lecture series.
In a discussion in May
2000 he asserts, implying that it exists as he describes it, that the
"lecture" he allegedly describes in the introduction as the first lecture
in the lecture series is a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo
at the time, but not published in the lecture series.
He also tries to play down the
importance of the "Protocol of Steiner" story with which he has introduced
his solo career as writer on Steiner, and in
October 2001 asserts that it "merely" was an "opening device",
used "for the Norway hook" (the publication in Norway of the article of
which it constitutes the introduction) and "to introduce Steiner's terminology".
An article by the Norwegian
Superior Court lawyer, Cato Schiøtz: "Antroposofin i Norge - Noen bemerkninger om forholdet til nazisme, rasisme og øko-fascisme" ("Anthroposophy in Norway - Some comments on the relation to nazism, racism
and ecofascism), shows that picking Norway in trying to depict Steiner and anthroposophy
as anti-Semitic was an especially bad choice.
The article shows that the leading
anthroposophists there during the Nazi time in Europe, in contrast to many
others in Norway, belonged to those that most clearly critizised the racism
and anti-Semitism cultivated by the nazis.
In addition, Staudenmaier in one comment asks that his introduction to the article be disregarded in reading the rest of the article.
When later reminded of this expressed wish by him that readers disregard the introduction in reading the rest of the article, he answers that he does not "understand" what the reminder refers to.
ON HANS MÄNDL
In the continued public discussions about his article,
Staudenmaier says he only remembers a book by a Hans
Mändl (for more on him, see here)
from 1966 as the basic source for what he writes about the title of his
"Protocol of Steiner" story in the article.
Checking with the book by Mändl,
that Staudenmaier hints that he has read by pointing to it as the source
for the title he gives for the untruthfully described lecture, shows that
nothing in it supports Staudenmaier's assertion that Steiner held the special
lecture Staudenmaier makes up the existence of with regard to its content
and forges a "description" of. It is also clear from the book by Mändl,
that what Mändl describes and gives the title for is a lecture series,
not a lecture.
In the discussion, Staudenmaier
also asserts that the description of the lecture he says he describes,
even if it not is published as the first lecture of the series as he states
in his introduction, yet well describes the content of the lecture series
as a whole.
of the published lecture series itself in relation to Staudenmaier's spiritual
"Protocol of Steiner" forgery by the undersigned contradicts also this
story by Staudenmaier. The analysis was originally published as three postings
1 May 2001 on a waldorf-critical discussion list, where Staudenmaier's
article was first published. At this site, I have edited it slightly to
hopefully make it clearer to people who, in contrast to the undersigned,
have English or American as their mother tongue.
In spite of the total lack of documentation for the existence of the alleged special "lecture" as "described"
by Staudenmaier, he continues to defend its "existence" as he describes
2001 on the discussion list of Dan Dugan, after he actually
has bought the published lecture series during a trip to Germany during
the summer, and probably read it, at least superficially, he denies that
the analysis published 5 months earlier of his "Protocol of Steiner" story
reveals any basic difference between his hoax and the lecture series, going
for a new "bold" con story:
"The published version of the lecture doesn't
contradict my description of it"
He also asserts that the "sole discrepancy" between his "Protocol
of Steiner" story and the published lecture series as a whole is "the word
'sub-race' ", and ends his comment with
"Yours for historical scholarship".
When he in the end realizes that he does not seem to be able
to find any documentation supporting the existence of the special hoax
lecture by Steiner as he describes it, with which he introduces the article,
neither as the first lecture of the series, nor as a lecture held separate
from the ones published in the lecture series, he -- again -- tells a new
story seemingly in an effort to finally find a refuge for his untruthfulness
and get out of the exposition and discussion of it.
The new story consists in asserting
that the lecture "described" by him -- after all -- is published
in the lecture series, only in an "edited" version, as lecture six in the
series, asserting that what he describes in the introduction is what Steiner
actually expresses in the lecture in question.
For the actual lecture six in question in the lecture series, see here.
In the untruthful made up introduction to his article, Staudenmaier with the term "germanic-nordic sub-race" of the "superior" "Aryan" "root race" seems to refer to the development of the present cultural epoch since the 15th century in the view of Steiner, as one of a series of post-glacial cultural epochs.
Reading the actual sixth lecture in the series reveals that it does not describe, neither the cultural epochs in question in general, nor the present cultural epoch in the view of Steiner, seemingly referred to by Staudenmaier.
Instead it constitutes a description of the nature of the "five races of mankind" in Steiner's view at their time of initiation far in the past, that in his view started to fade as a reality with the end of the glacial ages.
It reveals that Staudenmaier's new assertion, that the sixth lecture in the lecture series constitutes an "edited" version of the alleged "lecture" he describes in the introduction not is very different from an assertion that cats are a cultivated breed of dogs, or that hens are a form of books (based on their generally similar size and the fact that both usually are found on some form of horizontal surfaces).
It also again reveals the superficial
understanding, alternatively the not more than superfical interest of Staudenmaier
in actually understanding a number of the central concepts he extensively
and with such eloquence argues about, being satisfied with playing repeated
word games about them.
"I DON'T TAKE THESE THINGS NEARLY AS SERIOUSLY AS YOU DO"
After the discussion exposing his "Protocol of Steiner"
hoax, Staudenmaier has told in a private correspondence that he (in some
not described way) had "corrected" it in later translations of it, telling
that if one searched the net, one would find them (something -- again --
not turning out to be the true, when using the major search engines on
the net to search for them).
In the correspoindence, Peter
Staudenmaier -- when pointed to that his untruthful story continues to be
published, both at the site of the "Institute for Social Ecology" with
which he is associated, as also at the site of PLANS -- in the personal
communication in November 2001 wrote that he at one time communicated with
the webmaster of the site of the Institute for Social Ecology to make the
webmaster correct the article. But he then -- when seeing that the untruths
remained uncorrected -- did not bother the webmaster again about it, adding:
"I don't take these things nearly as seriously
as you do".
He also has not bothered to correct it at the site of PLANS,
whose Secretary and webmaster he regularly up to this day communicates
with via the mailing list of the Secretary and the webmaster.
Neither have the Secretary of
PLANS or the present webmaster of the site of PLANS done it, consciously
continuing to publish the demonstrated untruths by Staudenmaier as part
of the anti-anthroposophy and anti-Waldorf demagoguery and defamation cultivated
at the site.
In defense of his documented
untruths, Staudenmaier in 2003 expressed the view that he not can be accused
of having lied, as he himself has believed that what he has written was
The "defense" in question constitutes
a principal defense of the untruthfulness not only of children, at times
making up stories for different reasons. It also constitutes the defence
also of among other pathological liars, not being fully able to distinguish
clearly between external reality and their inner more or less megalomanic
and/or paranoic fantasies about it and not really caring more than superficially
about the difference, or as Staudenmaier in his own words describes it:
"I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you do".
He also during 2003, three years
after the original publication of his article, in a discussion has published
a new, slightly "edited" version of the introduction, in which he -- after
for years having defended it -- has taken out the above described well documented obvious history forgery with regard to the first lecture in the lecture series, and instead "only" states that the introduction refers to the whole lecture series. For more on this, see here.
AN INSULT TO THE CONCEPT OF "HISTORICAL SCHOLAR"
The described discussion of the introducing untruths
by Staudenmaier about Rudolf Steiner, and the comments by Staudenmaier
himself, describing his own work as applying "standard scholarly procedure",
in addition to other discussions about his writings, demonstrates his not
only the unpredictable complete unreliability of what he writes on Rudolf
Steiner, depicting him as an Aryan suprematist and anti-Semite.
It also indicates the profound
noninterest by Staudenmaier in whether what he writes and publishes on
anthroposophy, when found on the internet, actually are true or not, even
in his own view.
Had Staudenmaier been the "scholar"
he likes to picture himself as, he probably would have been kicked out
of University for his forgery and stories.
As someone who seems to remain
content to play polemical word games as self described "scholar" for different
demagogical purposes, he can continue his games and make up stories, admired,
published and supported by the small anti-Waldorf group PLANS in San Francisco,
and other small missionary secular humanist groups and associations in
different countries, like Norway and Sweden.
ON PETER STAUDENMAIER AND DAN DUGAN
In 2001 the undersigned in a discussion on a "waldorf-critics"
(WC) mailing list, moderated by Mr. Dugan, Secretary of PLANS and originator
of PLANS' website and secular humanist missionary since long, at one time
pointed to the untruthfulness of the writings of Staudenmaier, telling
on the basis of the demonstrated untruths found in his writings, linking
to the documentation demonstrating it, could be called a known liar.
Telling the truth about the
writings of Staudenmaier however was not permitted by the moderator of
the discussion, who considered this to be an impermissible "ad hominem"
comment (a comment on Staudenmaier as a person), and permanently unsubscribed
the undersigned from all further discussions on the list, leaving the "Protocol
of Steiner" fraud uncorrected at the site of PLANS, and later threatening
to unsubscribe also others from the discussion, if they told the list about
the demonstrated untruthfulness of what Mr. Staudenmaier has written.
Mr. Dugan also in discussions
in May 2003 on his list has tried to cover up for the untruths of Staudenmaier
by producing a smoke screen of his own, asserting that the lecture that Staudenmaier describes as introduction to his article "was easily available both in print and on the web", meaning either the first lecture of the series, as untruthfully described by Staudenmaier in the article, or
the sixth lecture, similarly untruthfully described by Staudenmaier as an "edited" version of the by himself made up hoax "lecture" in terms of its alleged content.
On the imaginary hoax lecture (the "lecture" made up by Staudenmaier as introduction to his writings on anthroposophy), Mr. Dugan also adds the smoke screen statement: "I have that lecture here in the PLANS library".
It tells that he probably realizes that his awareness of his and the webmaster of PLANS; Gary Bonhiver's, continued publication of the untruths by Staudenmaier -- if admitted -- would reveal the profound noninterest of Mr. Dugan and other representatives of PLANS -- with the vice President of PLANS Lisa Ercolano even working as a professional journalist -- in whether what is published at the site of PLANS actually is true or not, as long as it can be used to defame and demonize Waldorf education and anthroposophy, superficially covering up for this untruthfulness with a disclaimer in the articles section of the site, added after the exposure of the demonstrated untruths published at the site, in passing stating: "PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section."
Mr. Dugan also writes in the
May 2003 posting, commenting on a quote on the WC-list by someone (a
'Percedol') from the main page on PLANS at this site, exposing the untruths by Peter Staudenmaier, that he (Mr. Dugan) considers the quoted description of Staudenmaier's writings to constitute grounds for an action of libel by Staudenmaier against
Mr. Dugan also writes that in
his view the one quoting the page in question ('Percedol') has exposed
himself to the same possibility of being sued for libel and adds as threat
that if he continues to make what Mr. Dugan describes as 'ad hominem' posts,
he will be unsubscribed from the discussion, telling that 'Percedol' should
consider the comment by Mr. Dugan as a warning.
I'd be more than happy to meet Mr. Staudenmaier in court
in Sweden in a libel case on this point after having discussed the issue
in detail with him on the WC-list and analyzed his writings in relation
to the sources he says he describes.
A defense by Staudenmaier in
court of the "Protocol of Steiner" story, constituting not a physical but
a spiritual forgery of the lecture allegedly described in the introduction,
would have a similar character as a defense of the "Protocol of Zion" forgery,
published c. 100 years earlier, by trying to argue for its truthfulness
on the basis of other, also more or less truthfully or untruthfully described
Jewish and other writings.
Somehow I doubt Staudenmaier will take Mr. Dugan on his
SOME MORE COMMENTS ON THE STORIES
BY PETER STAUDENMAIER
For more comments on the carelessness with which Staudenmaier
writes about the "lecture" and lecture series by Steiner, that he "describes"
as starting point to and foundation stone of his solo writings on anthroposophy,
and his way of describing Hans Mändl as a source for the title of
the alleged "lecture", see another
posting on it to the WC-list.
For a comment on the confused
way Staudenmaier projects a hierarchical view of the relation between races,
dominant during the first part of the 20th century in the West, on anthroposophy,
On the allegation by Staudenmaier
and others that Rudolf Hess was 'anthroposophist', see a
letter from his wife, Ilse Hess, in 1984 on the issue.
For more on the way the "Protocol
of Steiner" mythology, to which Staudenmaier tries to contribute, is used
as one of the mythologies about Rudolf Steiner and Waldorf education, cultivated
by PLANS, see here.
For more on some of the historical
and conceptual background of the demagogical campaigns and writings of
Saudenmaier and PLANS, see here.
After the article on "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" has
been published by a Human Ethical respectively a rationalist organisation
in Norway respectively Sweden, they have been answered by other authors.
After the article 'Anthroposophy
and Eco-Fascism" was published in "Humanist" 2/2000, organ of the Norwegian
Human Ethical Association, it was answered by Peter Normann Waage, former
waldorf pupil and now journalist at the main left oriented daily in Norway;
"Dagbladet" (The Daily):
Peter Normann Waage:
HUMANISM OG POLEMISK POPULISM
HUMANISM AND POLEMICAL
Staudenmaier answered together with Peter Zegers in Humanist
This led to a new answer
Peter Normann Waage:
NYE MYTER OM RUDOLF STEINER
NEW MYTHS ABOUT RUDOLF
For two answers by Cato Schiøtz, a Supreme Court
lawyer in Norwayto the Norwegian journal Humanist, not published by the
ANTROPOSOFIN I NORGE
Noen bemerkninger om forholdet til nazisme, rasisme
(ANTHROPOSOPHY IN NORWAY
Some comments on the relation to nazism, racism and ecofascism),
HUMAN-ETIKK I TEORI OG
(HUMAN ETHICS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE)
A complementing comment on the article by Staudenmaier
was published by Oddvar Granly in the Norwegian anthroposophical Journal
HUMANIST PÅ KRIGSSTIEN
HUMANIST AT WAR
The article by Staudenmaier at the site of PLANS has also
been published by "Folkvett", organ of "Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning"
(Association Science and Common Sense) nr 2/2001.
It has also been republished by the association in late
2003. See here for some comments
in Swedish about the publication and republication of the article by Staudenmaier.
In the same issue, an answer was published by Göran
Fant, long time Waldorf teacher and historian of literature and music.
KONSTEN ATT GÖRA VITT
THE ART OF TURNING WHITE
(Folkvett 2/2001, s. 42-58)
For some more comments on the writings and argumantation technique of Peter Staudenmaier, based on public discussions with him during 2004, see
Go to the main page on PLANS
at this site.